No, it obviously should not be the state that decides something like this. This is journalists' work. The most difficult part of whistleblowing is proving that

No, it obviously should not be the state that decides something like this. This is journalists' work. The most difficult part of whistleblowing is proving that any of this stuff is happening. If I started posting on HN about a black market for human baby meat, you probably wouldn't even see it: pg would ban me almost immediately as a troll, and he'd be right to do so. But what if there actually is one? (and I'm not even really anonymous; if you want to, you can find my real name) A journalist who knows the real identity of an anonymous informant has the ability to prove that they are who they say they are, and that the stuff they're trying to blow the cover of is actually happening. You don't know the identity of the informant, but there is still a real-world identity and reputation tied to the information, which is at least supposed to mean that if they're full of crap, you don't listen to them next time. There is, simply put, a chain of custody for reliable information.